FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 21 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 11-10315
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:10-cr-00007-JAM
v.
MEMORANDUM *
URIEL MIRANDA-OREGEL, a.k.a.
Arturo Garcia, a.k.a. Juan Jose Juarez,
a.k.a. Pedro Vargas,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 15, 2012 **
Before: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Uriel Miranda-Oregel appeals from the 77-month sentence imposed
following his guilty-plea conviction for being a deported alien found in the United
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §
1291, and we affirm.
Miranda-Oregel contends that the district court erred by not awarding him a
two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility. See U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a). The
district court did not clearly err in finding that Miranda-Oregel had not accepted
responsibility for his offense, because the record reflects that he did not
demonstrate contrition and that his conduct manifesting acceptance of
responsibility was untimely. See U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 cmt. n.1(H); United States v.
Nielsen, 371 F.3d 574, 582 (9th Cir. 2004) (“To receive the two-point downward
adjustment, a defendant must at least show contrition or remorse.”).
We decline to consider on direct appeal Miranda-Oregel’s claim of
ineffective assistance of counsel, because the record is insufficiently developed and
his legal representation was not so inadequate that we can now conclude he
obviously was denied his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. See United States v.
McKenna, 327 F.3d 830, 845 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Claims of ineffective assistance of
counsel are generally inappropriate on direct appeal.”).
AFFIRMED.
2 11-10315